DON’CHA KNOW? A SURVEY OF ESL TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES … · Rosa – ESL Teachers’ Perspectives on Reduced Forms Instruction 52 as a product of the stress-timed language in

Second Language Studies, 21(1), Fall 2002, pp. 49-78.

DON’CHA KNOW?

A SURVEY OF ESL TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES

ON REDUCED FORMS INSTRUCTION

MOANA ROSA

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

ABSTRACT

The perceptual saliency of spoken English is often reduced creating variation in the way English is

spoken in very formal contexts from more naturally occurring English. Reduced forms refer to basic

elements of this naturally occurring spoken English, integral and pervasive elements of spoken

English, that are seriously neglected in both research and materials development. Reduced forms

occur in all registers and styles of speech with pragmatic and syntactic constraints inherent in their use.

This study provides an overview of the current literature and a survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives

on reduced forms instruction. This paper also calls for more research into the role of reduced forms

and the development of more authentic teaching materials that support the teacher in a systematic and

effective approach to reduced forms instruction.

INTRODUCTION

Language teaching has developed from a time when grammar translation and drills

were the norm to a more communicative process, with an emphasis on meaningful and

authentic materials considered the most effective way of teaching. Despite this new

emphasis on authenticity and communication, language learners still face difficult

challenges when it comes to understanding natural native speaker conversations.

It’s a common and frustrating experience that many second language learners can

relate to. Students are taught grammar and vocabulary, and practice conversations and

dialogues to learn a new language. Language teachers speak clearly and provide

listening materials that are full of clearly pronounced and articulated speech. Language

learners develop their listening and speaking skills based on this adapted English

speaking style. Then they arrive at the host country and are shocked and dismayed to

Rosa – ESL Teachers’ Perspectives on Reduced Forms Instruction 50

find that native speakers don’t actually speak in the way the language is written or in the

ways their teachers and listening materials represent the language. The language outside

of the classroom seems unfamiliar and fast, and the students are unable to decipher word

boundaries or recognize words or phrases. Students who do not receive instruction or

exposure to this type of ‘real’, naturally occurring language, are “going to have a very

rude awakening when he [sic] tries to understand native speech in natural communicative

situations” (Ur, 1987, p. 10).

All languages have this type of variation from written to spoken texts: “It results from

a simple law of economy, whereby the organs of speech, instead of taking a new position

for each sound, tend to draw sounds together with the purpose of saving time and energy”

(Clarey & Dixson, 1963, p. 12). With English, this process of assimilation is combined

with contractions, elision, and reduction to produce the connected speech commonly

referred to as “reduced forms” (Brown & Hilferty, 1989). Naturally occurring English

conversation, whether formal or informal, fast or slow, is full of these reduced forms.

This creates a serious challenge for English as a second language (ESL) students who

have little or no exposure to reduced forms.

Studies on this widely occurring aspect of English are very limited, yet those that are

available are enlightening in that they reveal the complexity of spoken English as well as

the dearth of research and materials available to teachers. The primary purpose of this

paper is to examine the previous research related to reduced forms and review the various

perspectives on how reduced forms should be dealt with inside the classroom with

respect to both listening comprehension and pronunciation. I will begin by focusing on

what reduced forms are and how they come about, then, turn my attention to the

theoretical basis for teaching reduced forms, and then the practical suggestions currently

available. Based on this literature review, a survey of ESL teachers’ perspectives will be

presented. Possible implications for further research will also be discussed.

The Role of Reduced Forms in Spoken English

Reduced forms have been defined as “native speakers’ connected speech replete with

its contracted forms, elision, liaison, and reduction” (Brown & Hilferty, 1989). In other

words, the “real” English used in natural conversations. This type of variation from


written text to spoken text can also be described as sandhi-variation, “a phenomenon

which reduces the overt markedness, or perceptual saliency, or morphemes” (Henrichsen,

1984, p. 103). Spoken English is full of reduced forms, for example, wanna, hafta, kuz,

and kinda, for ‘want to’, ‘have to’, ‘because’, and ‘kind of’, respectively. These are just a

few of the many examples of reduced forms in spoken English, which can also be

referred to an aspect of “connected speech”.

Although many researchers have defined this occurrence as something that happens

in “naturally occurring talk” or “real” spoken English (Jones & Ono, 2000; Guillot, 1999;

Marks, 1999; Moh-Kim Tam, 1997; Buck, 1995; Norris, 1995; Hewings, 1993; Avery &

Ehrlich, 1992; Brown & Hilferty, 1989; Pennington & Richards, 1986; Richards, 1983;

Gimson, 1974), many other researchers have classified reduced forms and connected

speech as something that occurs in ‘fast’, ‘informal’, ‘relaxed’ or ‘casual’ speech (Norris,

1993; Henrichsen, 1984; Weinstein, 1982; Hill & Beebe, 1980; Brown, G., 1976), while

still others neglect to mention this aspect of spoken English at all. Kaisse (1985) argues

that connected speech and reduced forms are not informal or due to the rate of speech.

Rather, Kaisse, citing Zwicky (1972) as providing the first influential treatment of

connected speech, notes that “connected speech is not necessarily either fast or casual

since there are rules of connected speech, such as French liaison, that apply at normal

rates or even in slow, formal speech” (p. 8). Furthermore, “casual speech is not

necessarily fast, nor fast speech necessarily casual” (Kaisse, 1985, p. 8). Reduced forms

are a common and typical element of spoken English, found in all registers and all rates

of speech. While register and rate may contribute to some rules of appropriateness or

production in general, reduced forms affect all areas and types of spoken English.

The majority of literature on reduced forms is found in general English pronunciation

texts which outline the stress-time aspect of the English language and the subsequent

reduction of unstressed words. Avery and Ehrlich (1992) devote an entire chapter of

their book Teaching American English pronunciation to “Connected Speech” as well as a

chapter to “Word Stress and Vowel Reduction”. Pennington and Richards (1986) deem

these “coarticulatory phenomena of the blending and overlapping of sounds in fluent

speech” as the “third dimension of pronunciation” (p. 210). Prator and Robinett (1972),

and Morley (1991) also devote specific attention to connected speech and reduced forms


as a product of the stress-timed language in their texts on pronunciation.

While English pronunciation can be examined at the segmental level, looking at the

sounds of the consonants and vowels themselves, connected speech belongs to a

suprasegmental level of pronunciation, focusing on the stress, time, intonation, and

rhythm of pronunciation. English is typically considered a stress-timed language,

implying a regular rhythm of stressed (and therefore unstressed) syllables. While many

languages are based on syllable timing, in which each syllable receives about the same

amount of stress, in English, it is primarily “content” words that receive stress while

“structure” or “function” words remain unstressed. Content words are words which

provide meaning, including nouns, main verbs, adverbs, adjectives, question words, and

demonstratives. Function words serve primarily a grammatical function and include

articles, prepositions, auxiliaries, pronouns, conjunctions, and relative pronouns (Avery

& Ehrlich, 1992, pp. 74-76).

Although it is widely accepted that English is a stress-timed language, it is important

to note that some argue that English is not truly a stressed-time language. Marks (1999)

argues that while this type of classification serves as the basis of most pedagogical

approaches to pronunciation, there is no evidence that this is truly the nature of English.

Marks asserts, “there are many factors which can disrupt the potential rhythm of a

sentence, and we find very often that sentences are not spoken rhythmically at all—the

rhythm may be only potential, or latent” (p. 193). Possibly the label ‘stress-timed’ is a

convenient and practical pedagogic construct, located at one end point on a continuum

with syllable-timed at the other end point.

Despite this question of the true nature of stress and rhythm in English, most

researchers and teachers accept that English is primarily a stress-timed language. In

order to keep the rhythm of the stress-timed language, function words are unstressed.

Therefore, these words often become modified in spoken English; “natural-sounding

pronunciation in conversational English is achieved through blends and omissions of

sounds to accommodate its stress-timed rhythmic pattern” (Clark & Clark, 1977 as cited

in Pennington & Richards, 1986, p. 208). Reduced forms are produced when these

unstressed function words are blended, contracted, linked, deleted, assimilated, or

reduced to combine with other function words as well as content words of a sentence.


The primary way sounds in function words are reduced is through the reduction of

vowel sounds from their “strong” form to their “weak” form which replaces a long vowel

sound with a schwa vowel sound (Hewings, 1993, p. 48). Auxiliary verbs are often

contracted while other sounds, especially the /h/ found in many pronouns and the /d/ in

‘and’, are commonly deleted completely in reduced forms (Gimson, 2001, pp. 252-254).

The linking of two words with consonant-consonant, consonant-vowel, and vowel-vowel

boundaries is also typical, resulting in the pronunciation of only one sound instead of

two. Assimilation is a similar process whereby the linking of consonant-consonant often

changes the pronunciation of the first consonant, making it more similar to the second

consonant. Palatization is another way in which function words become reduced and is

found in many of the most common reduced forms. Palatization occurs when the tooth

ridge sounds of /t/ and /d/ are pronounced further back in the mouth, closer to the hard

palate, in the same place where the semi-vowel /y/ is pronounced. This occurs most

commonly when the last sound of one word is /d/, /t/, or /s/ and the following word

begins with the semi-vowel /y/, for example, didja and wouldja, for ‘did you’ and ‘would

you’, respectively (Avery & Ehrlich, 1992, pp. 87-88).

Theoretical Perspectives on Reduced Forms Instruction

The rules for these combinations are very systematic, yet in all of the literature

available to me, I have not found a complete text dedicated to these rules or to the

framework of rules that affect the usage of reduced forms. If they are covered at all, most

provide a very cursory review of the ways in which these can and cannot be combined or

reduced. Hill and Beebe (1980) do provide a rather comprehensive set of rules and

constraints for blending and contractions in written and spoken English, yet reduced

forms and the linguistic and/or pragmatic constraints of usage are not specifically

addressed. This is an area of research that is definitely limited with respect to reduced

forms. In fact most of the research and literature related to reduced forms calls for

increased study of the rules and ways in which reduced forms occur in spoken English

(Jones & Ono, 2000; Buck, 1995; Morley, 1991; Rost, 1991; Brown & Hilferty, 1986;

Pennington & Richards, 1986; Kaisse, 1985; Henrichsen, 1984).

Although the primary research and literature dealing with reduced forms is found in


pronunciation texts, it is obvious that the presence of reduced forms affects not only the

pronunciation of second language learners, but also the listening comprehension of

learners. While most descriptions of the process of reduction and the presence of reduced

forms in English are from a pronunciation perspective, most research on the effects of

reduced forms on ESL students focuses on their listening comprehension.

Listening itself is a complex skill. A listener does not have control of the information

coming in and must actively receive and process the input. When the perceptual saliency

of the input is reduced, the challenge for learners is significantly increased. Many texts

on listening seem to focus on listening strategies yet it seems that strategies may be too

broad to focus on when the very comprehension of natural spoken language may be the

true challenge (Norris, 1995). In any case, reduced forms will play a role in the students’

comprehension level as they are a major part of spoken English.

Henrichsen (1984) examined language learners’ listening comprehension when the

perceptual saliency of the input is reduced by sandhi variation (reduced forms).

Assuming that listening comprehension is a compilation of input as well as the listener’s

expectations, Henrichsen hypothesizes that learners with a lower level of English

proficiency will show a significant reduction in listening comprehension with the

presence of sandhi variation. Henrichsen tested 65 ESL students with two different

dictation tests, providing sentences with and without sandhi variation. The results show a

significant relationship between level of proficiency and the effect of sandhi variation on

the scores of the comprehension dictation tests. This correlation between proficiency

level and comprehension is significant and enlightening for ESL teachers, yet fails to

examine the effects of reduced-forms instruction on the comprehension of reduced forms

in spoken English. While proficiency level may affect the listening comprehension of

language learners, what role does the instruction of reduced forms play in listening

comprehension?

Brown and Hilferty (1986) examined the effects of instruction of reduced forms on

the listening comprehension of English as a foreign language (EFL) students. Thirty-two

EFL students were randomly selected to make two groups, a control group and treatment

group. Four weeks of daily 10-minute sessions focused on reduced forms were provided

to the treatment group, while the control group received instruction on minimal pairs. All


students were administered dictation tests, which contained some of the reduced forms

that had been part of the previous treatment. After four weeks of instruction, the

treatment group showed a significant (almost twice as much) improvement in the reduced

forms dictation test over the control group. Both Henrichsen (1984) and Brown and

Hilferty (1986) provide significant and important discussions of these results that show

the effects of reduced forms on comprehension and the effects of instruction of reduced

forms on comprehension. The groundwork for examining what is available for English

teachers and how reduced forms should best be taught is set through this research.

Jones and Ono (2000) compared textbook dialogues and actual conversations to

examine if the ideal that real speech should be represented in textbooks is actually what

occurs in textbooks. The conversations represented in textbook conversations and

dialogues were compared with naturally occurring spoken language in order to

“demonstrate convincingly that textbook dialogues do not reflect the ways in which real

talk is produced in actual interactions” (p. 12). This disparity, they conclude, can be

ameliorated by teachers and researchers taking a closer look at real language and

increasing the exposure and understanding of real language for their students. G. Brown

(1977) reiterated the importance of exposure to and awareness of authentic spoken

English: “the main thing (in choosing listening material) is to avoid anything that was

originally produced specifically for foreign use…” (p. 157). A. Brown (1995) proposed a

common and currently very popular idea about this type of instruction, stating that this

focus on authentic material should be matched with meaningful and communicative

tasks. In contrast, there are those that support less authentic material that allows learners

to focus on the stress-timed element of the language as a basis for learning about reduced

forms. Marks (1999) suggests using rhyme and verse as a valuable tool to “provide a

convenient framework for the perception and production of a number of characteristic

features of English pronunciation which are often found to be problematic for learners”

(p. 198). Possibly, the comprehension and awareness of reduced forms can be primarily

learned though exposure to authentic and meaningful material while the practice of the

pronunciation of reduced forms can employ more constructed dialogue and verse in order

to maintain this focus.

In teaching reduced forms, this authentic materials disparity seems to stem from the


ongoing debate about whether to teach listening comprehension or actual production of

reduced forms. Most of the literature on reduced forms to date, as limited as it is,

promotes the instruction of reduced forms with a focus on comprehension over

production, especially by second language learners who are not highly proficient (Norris,

1993, 1995; Hewings, 1993; Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Morley, 1991; Rost, 1991; Brown &

Hilferty, 1989; Pennington & Richards, 1986; Hill & Beebe, 1980; Brown, G., 1977;

Gimson, 1975). Most of these researchers and teachers contend that the level of

proficiency required to use reduced forms successfully is very advanced, though all

levels of learners can benefit from instruction on reduced forms, in order to increase both

their comprehension and awareness of this element of spoken English. Avery and

Ehrlich (1992) deal directly with ‘connected speech’ and the ways in which it is

pronounced, yet follow this focus with the following conclusion:

…when our ESL students use ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’ and ‘dunno’, they often sound

unnatural…we should probably not insist on having our students produce these forms

until their spoken English is fairly advanced. We should, however, introduce these

forms for recognition to even basic students as they appear frequently in spoken

English (p. 89).

Hewings (1993) provides numerous exercises for pronunciation, yet warns before the

pronunciation tasks of connected speech and reduced forms that the emphasis of the

exercises is on “listening to the differences between the pronunciation of slow speech and

connected speech, rather than on students producing these differences in their own

speech” (p. 54). Hill and Beebe (1980) in an attempt to summarize the rules and

constraints of blending and contractions, also conclude, “that teachers distinguish

between normal speech blending and fast speech blending, encouraging students to

develop productive controls over the former but only receptive control over the latter”

(pp. 322-323). While these texts directly address the ways in which reduced forms

should be taught, there is also literature that is focused specifically on listening

comprehension and reduced forms or pronunciation and reduced forms.

The few comprehensive listening comprehension or pronunciation texts that

specifically address reduced forms with respect to either of these elements, consider the

role of instruction very integral in language learning. Buck (1995) asserts that the


“spoken language is subject to considerable phonological modification, and that words

are pronounced very differently from their dictionary citation forms. Of course the

changes are quite systematic and students need to learn how the system works” (p. 123).

Obviously, Buck promotes instruction of reduced forms in teaching listening

comprehension, yet the systematic knowledge that he proposes for instruction is still in

need of development. Very little material is available on the systematic use of reduced

forms. Norris (1993) also calls for a systematic knowledge of spoken English for

increased listening comprehension: “In order to effectively help students improve their

listening skills, teachers must be aware of the characteristics that mark informal spoken

English” (p. 56). While these two examples recommend a systematic knowledge of

reduced forms, they fail to mention that this has never been systematized. For example,

Richards (1983) acknowledges that reduced forms are a factor that “influences the work

listeners must do to process speech” (p. 224). And while Richards does provide some

guidelines for approaching the teaching of listening (e.g., needs analysis, assessment,

specific types of exercises), a systematic description of their use is not specifically

addressed in the article. This type of treatment of reduced forms, where they are

identified as a factor of spoken English, yet not concretely examined or described, is

common throughout the literature.

With the literature specific to pronunciation, the treatment is rather similar. Reduced

forms are often mentioned as a product of stress-timed language and an aspect of spoken

English, but no truly in-depth analysis of reduced forms systems, constraints and nature

is outlined. Richards and Pennington (1986) examine the broader focus of pronunciation

teaching that has replaced older approaches of segmental pronunciation instruction using

drills:

Teaching isolated forms of sounds and words fails to address the fact that in

communication, many aspects of pronunciation are determined by the positioning of

elements within long stretches of speech…(p. 218).

Richards and Pennington go on to call for more research on the nature of learning and

teaching pronunciation. A. Brown (1995) also asserts that the focus in teaching

pronunciation must shift away from segmental units of pronunciation, for example

minimal pairs drills, and towards a super-segmental level of pronunciation, for example


stress, rhythm, intonation, and voicing. This type of treatment of pronunciation is

common in current materials. Although it is beneficial that these aspects of

pronunciation are now more in focus as an integral aspect of pronunciation, reduced

forms are rarely specifically addressed. This is similar to the call for a systematic

knowledge of reduced forms in teaching listening comprehension. While this would

seem as though it would be necessary for instruction, this systematic evaluation of the

rules and constraints of reduced forms is definitely in serious need of being developed.

Furthermore, it appears that few researchers connect the pronunciation aspect of reduced

forms with the listening comprehension aspect, dealing with these aspects as separate

elements of spoken English.

There are those that propose a focus on both aspects—listening and pronunciation—

in the process of teaching reduced forms. Morley (1991) suggests that, “attention to

pronunciation-oriented listening instruction was an important component of traditional

pronunciation teaching with a primary focus on sound discrimination and identification

exercises” (p. 494). This attention to pronunciation while focusing on listening

instruction may be a balance between the two elements. This balance is difficult to

acquire, with the few researchers who discuss both of these aspects related to reduced

forms recognizing the relationship between the two elements, yet often leaning towards

one element as a primary focus. Brown and Hilferty (1989) focused primarily on

listening comprehension in their study of reduced forms at the Guangzhou English

Language Center (UCLA/China Exchange Program), yet question this focus after the

treatment was completed. Gimson (1975) directly addresses this issue in the introduction

of A practical course of English pronunciation, stating clearly:

Before we try to produce sounds which are new to us, it is therefore essential that we

should perceive the differences between the sounds in the new language, and between

the new sounds and those of own language with which we have become so familiar.

This is what the present course sets out to do: drills of listening and discrimination,

and only then attempts at performance. (p. 1)

Gimson is not ruling out the instruction of reduced forms as either a listening or

pronunciation aspect of learning, but rather first a listening process and then the

production process. This supports the idea of raising students’ awareness of reduced


forms. Students need to know that what they are listening for in spoken English is

different than how it is written. Once this awareness is raised, students can then work on

producing this type of spoken English. This goes along with issues of proficiency levels

of learners. Beginning level learners will not have the same ability as higher-level

proficiency learners in incorporating all elements of reduced forms (Henrichsen, 1984).

Practical Suggestions for Reduced Forms Instruction

Based on this broad range of theories on how reduced forms should be taught, various

types of instruction have been suggested. Although the focus of instruction may vary due

to proficiency level, all of the exercises and instructional approaches that have been

suggested can be adapted for any proficiency level in order to, at the very least, raise

learners’ attention to the presence of reduced forms in spoken English. Openly

discussing and identifying common reduced forms and increasing students’ exposure to

reduced forms with authentic listening materials is a common suggestion for introducing

reduced forms and awareness-raising practices (Guillot, 1999; Rost, 1991; Brown &

Hilferty, 1989; Koster, 1987; Snow & Perkins, 1979). Included in these awareness-

raising activities are exercises that have students writing in their journals about their

personal listening experiences with reduced forms and practicing self-monitoring (Norris

1993, 1995; Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Rost, 1991). With an increased awareness of

reduced forms, practice with reduced forms is valued over study of reduced forms,

“letting foreign language students listen frequently to the spoken language with all the

characteristics of connected speech is no doubt more important than familiarizing them

with the theoretical aspects of, for instance, assimilation…practice is much more

important than theory” (Koster, 1987, p. 143).

This focus on practice with authentic materials is supported by many other

researchers and authors (e.g., Buck, 1995; Rost, 1991; Brown & Hilferty, 1989; Prator &

Robinett, 1972). Some of the exercises suggested to promote practice include cloze tests

and dictation (Norris, 1993, 1995; Avery & Ehrlich, 1992; Brown & Hilferty 1989),

analyzing spoken and written texts for stress and rhythm (Guillot, 1999; Norris 1993,

1995; Prator & Robinett, 1972), and read aloud exercises (Moh-Kim Tam, 1997; Prator

& Robinett, 1972). Meaningful, purposeful, communicative task-based exercises to


provide this practice must also be a factor incorporated into these activities (Moh-Kim

Tam, 1997; Brown, A., 1995; Buck, 1995; Norris 1993, 1995; Snow & Perkins, 1979).

These exercises and suggestions can be very helpful for teachers, but only in a day-

to-day way, when what would really benefit teachers and students would be a more

thorough understanding of the relationship between listening and pronunciation and the

rules and constraints (linguistically and pragmatically) of using reduced forms. This

deeper, more systematic knowledge of reduced forms does not need to take away from

meaningful and authentic practice with reduced forms. Rather, with a more systematic

understanding of how reduced forms work, teachers will be better equipped to guide their

students’ practice and can promote the development of more authentic and effective

teaching materials.

There are of course a multitude of factors that affect language learners’ listening and

pronunciation development. Awareness, proficiency levels, and saliency are all factors

that are directly related to the teaching of reduced forms. Possibly the ways listening and

pronunciation are taught may depend more on the goals or needs of students over any of

the other factors cited above.

In reviewing the literature on reduced forms, how they come about, and how they

should be taught, the lack of relevant research becomes very evident. Obviously, more

research is needed in all areas of reduced forms. Many have cited raising the awareness

of learners as an integral factor in improving both learners’ comprehension and

pronunciation of reduced forms. I believe that teachers and researchers also need to raise

their own awareness of the role of reduced forms in language learning. Future research

should seek to clarify the ways in which reduced forms are used. The focus and approach

of teaching reduced forms should also be further researched. It would be helpful to

analyze the current treatment of reduced forms in available teaching materials as well as

a general survey into teachers’ attitudes and practices when it comes to reduced forms. It

is only through more research and more awareness of the systematic and pervasive role

of reduced forms in spoken English and in language learning that we will begin to answer

some of these pertinent questions and be able to provide language students with a

systematic framework and practice with which to learn.

In order to understand more clearly the current situation in the classroom with regard


to reduced forms and English teaching, a survey of ESL teachers was conducted. The

purpose of the survey was to investigate the perspectives of ESL instructors toward

reduced forms and English teaching as well as to understand their familiarity with the

role of reduced forms in spoken English. The primary research questions were the

following:

1. How familiar are ESL instructors with the role of reduced forms in spoken English?

2. What are ESL teachers’ perspectives on the role of reduced forms in teaching

listening comprehension?

3. What challenges do ESL instructors face with respect to reduced forms instruction?

METHOD

Participants

A total of 52 survey questionnaires were distributed to ESL instructors throughout

Oahu. This included nine surveys that were distributed directly to ESL teachers at the

Hawai‘i TESOL Conference held in February, 2003 in Honolulu, 16 surveys delivered to

all the ESL teachers at the Hawaii English Language Program (HELP) at the University

of Hawaii, Manoa, 17 surveys delivered to all the ESL teachers at the English Language

Institute (ELI) at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, and 10 surveys sent to ESL teachers

at Brigham Young University Hawaii (BYUH). All the surveys, except those that were

done at the TESOL Conference, were delivered to the teachers’ school mailboxes.

Teachers were able to return the surveys to one volunteer teacher at their school who

collected them, or to the researcher’s mailbox directly. Of these surveys, 13 out of 16

were returned completed from HELP, 15 out of 17 were returned completed from ELI,

and eight out of 10 were returned completed from BYUH. All nine of the surveys

administered at the TESOL conference were completed and returned on the same day.

Of the 45 respondents, ESL teaching experience ranged from half a year to 35 years.

Thirty-four of the teachers were native speakers of English, and 11 of the teachers were

non-native speakers of English, with first languages including Japanese, Korean,

Chinese, and Portuguese. Thirty-seven of the teachers also spoke a second, and often

third or fourth language, including Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese,


German, French, Russian, Hebrew, Tongan, Vietnamese, and Nepali. The teachers

predominantly were involved in intensive English programs as well as English for

academic purposes. Two of the teachers were teaching at high school level, while the

remaining 43 were teaching at the University or adult levels. Forty of the forty-five

teachers had experience teaching reduced forms, five had never taught reduced forms.

Materials

The survey used in this study was developed from an original pilot study involving 17

ESL/EFL teachers enrolled in the UH Manoa Second Language Studies Department

graduate program in ESL. Based on this pilot study, and after much feedback and

multiple revisions, the final version of the survey was developed (see Appendix). The

resulting survey is two pages long and includes 17 questions. Teachers reported that the

survey took an average of about five minutes to complete.

The survey began with a short introduction, stating the purpose of the study and a

very brief explanation of what exactly the phrase “reduced forms” refers to. There were

also three questions directed towards the biographical data of the respondents, including

how long they have taught ESL, what languages they speak, and the type of program they

are involved with. Fifteen of the seventeen questions were closed-response items,

offering either Yes or No options, Likert scales, or checklists in which teachers could

check as many elements as were applicable. The items were first aimed at establishing

the amount of knowledge and familiarity teachers have with the role of reduced forms in

English, followed by items focused on their own experiences and perspectives with

teaching reduced forms, and finally on the challenges they face in teaching reduced

forms. Two open-ended questions finished out the survey by asking teachers what they

would like to see in the future with regard to reduced forms and asking for any further

comments the teachers might have.

Like most survey instruments, it should be noted that, despite the multiple revisions

of the survey, some teachers found that a few of the closed-response items on the survey

did not fully represent their opinions. The most common occurrence of this was in item

eight, in which teachers were asked to identify how much time they typically devote to

reduced forms instruction in any typical class. Six of the forty teachers who had


experience teaching reduced forms chose not to answer this as they noted it depended on

a multitude of factors and they could not provide a generalization. Despite some of these

difficulties with a closed-response format, for the most part, teachers were able to

complete the survey successfully without too much (written) disapproval.

Procedures

The survey was developed over a period of four months and distributed personally to

the office mailboxes of all ESL teachers involved in the ELI and HELP. They were also

distributed directly to the office mailboxes of ten ESL instructors at the BYUH campus.

The surveys distributed at the TESOL Conference were completed on site. All of the

TESOL conference surveys were completed and returned to the researcher the day of the

conference. Of the teachers who received their surveys in their office mailboxes,

teachers had the option of returning the survey directly to the researcher, dropping the

survey off in the researcher’s office mailbox, or dropping the survey off with a co-

operating teacher involved in their personal ESL program. The teachers were primarily

chosen to take part in this survey because of their current involvement in ESL instruction

and their involvement in local ESL programs.

The return rate was quite high, with 87% of the total surveys distributed being

returned completed. I believe there are two possible reasons for this high return rate.

First, all of the teachers involved were active in ESL teacher training and development,

as they were working in programs connected with University ESL programs or taking

part in the local TESOL conference. Secondly, the format of the survey was clear and

the items were brief.

The completed surveys were coded and the results tabulated. First the overall results

were analyzed for general trends among all the teachers. This was followed by an

analysis of the results when teachers’ answers were organized by specific groups, for

example, comparing the responses of teachers with fewer than three years teaching

experience to those with three to ten years of experience and those with over ten years

experience.


RESULTS

Of the 45 teachers surveyed, 47% (21 teachers) had taken courses on teaching

listening comprehension, 20 of these teachers had received instruction on the role of

reduced forms in teaching ESL listening comprehension. Only 20 of all 45 teachers had

received any training in reduced forms instruction. Twenty-five of the teachers learned

about reduced forms from ESL textbooks. Twenty-six of the teachers felt that they were

Somewhat Familiar with the role of reduced forms in English, while 13 teachers felt they

were Very Familiar with reduced forms in spoken English, and six chose Not Very

Familiar or Not at all Familiar.

Teachers’ Self-Assessed Familiarity with Reduced Forms

Those 13 teachers who chose Very Familiar in regard to the role of reduced forms in

spoken English also had more training in teaching reduced forms, including taking

courses on teaching ESL listening comprehension in which reduced forms instruction

was covered, as well as other teacher training that covered reduced forms and

information from ESL textbooks. Although over 90% of all the teachers were familiar

with linking, deletions, and contractions, and over 80% were familiar with assimilation

and the English vowel sound of schwa, these teachers who considered themselves Very

Familiar consistently had higher average familiarity with these listed aspects of reduced

forms. As shown in Figure 1, the most significant difference was in the stress-timed

aspect of English. These teachers were much more familiar with the stress-timed aspect

of English, with 69% of these teachers marking this option, compared to 46% for those

who chose Somewhat Familiar and none for those who chose Not at all Familiar.


Figure 1. Teacher’s self-rating of familiarity with reduced forms compared with key

elements of reduced forms.

Another aspect that differentiated these teachers was in item number three which asks

teachers to best identify the role of reduced forms instruction. Option one described

reduced forms as most often occurring in “fast spoken English”. Option two described

reduced forms as most often occurring in “casual, informal spoken English”. Option

three described reduced forms as occurring in “all types of spoken English”. Fifty-eight

percent of all teachers chose option three, considering reduced forms to be a part of all

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

Very Important to Teach? Very Helpful? Have you Explicitly Taught? Fam. W/ Stress timing? Reduced forms in all types ofEnglish?

Perspectives and Experience

% o

f Tea

cher

s pe

r Gro

up

Very Familiar (N=13) Somewhat Familiar (N=26) Not Very/Not at all Familiar (N=6)


types of English. Sixty-nine percent of those who considered themselves Very Familiar

with the role of reduced forms chose option three, compared to 58% of those that had

marked they were Somewhat Familiar, and only 33% of those who had marked that they

were Not very Familiar or Not at all Familiar.

Teachers’ Experience with Reduced Forms Instruction

Forty of the 45 teachers had experience teaching reduced forms. Of these 40, 73%

had addressed reduced forms in class when they have come up in context and 58% had

explicitly taught reduced forms. Fifty-three percent of the teachers had addressed

reduced forms with respect to listening comprehension, while 49% of the teachers had

addressed reduced forms with respect to pronunciation.

The group of teachers who had explicitly taught reduced forms (58% of total

teachers) had slightly more teaching experience on average, with similar amounts of

teacher training dealing with teaching reduced forms. This group considered reduced

forms to be Very important in teaching ESL listening comprehension, with 58% choosing

this option in response to the item “Do you consider reduced forms to be an important

element to teach in ESL listening comprehension?” Those who had not taught reduced

forms explicitly were more likely to consider reduced forms instruction to be Somewhat

important in teaching reduced forms instruction (63%). It is important to note that 42 of

the 45 teachers considered reduced forms instruction Somewhat to Very important, with

those who had experience explicitly teaching reduced forms more often choosing Very

important. Forty-three of the 45 total teachers considered it Very helpful to Somewhat

helpful to teach reduced forms (19 and 24, respectively), again with those teachers with

experience teaching reduced forms more often explicitly supporting this. It is also

interesting to note that those teachers who had explicitly taught reduced forms report on

average that their students seem more interested in the instruction compared to teachers

who had not explicitly taught reduced forms.

Teachers’ Use of Linguistic and Pragmatic Systems with Reduced Forms Instruction

Twenty percent of the teachers often taught reduced forms as a system of linguistic

rules and constraints, 48% often taught reduced forms as a system of pragmatic rules and


constraints, and 75% often taught reduced forms within context, using common

examples. Teaching reduced forms as a linguistic system of rules and constraints was the

least common response, with 53% of the teachers choosing Never to the statement “I

teach reduced forms as a system of linguistic rules and constraints.” Only 12% of the

teachers chose Never to the statement “I teach reduced forms as a system of pragmatic

rules and constraints”. Seven percent of the teachers chose Never to the statement “I

teach reduced forms with in context, using common examples.”

The teachers who most often taught linguistic systems when teaching reduced forms

were those teachers who considered themselves Very familiar with the role of reduced

forms, who most often considered reduced forms to occur in all types of spoken English,

and who were also most aware of the stress-timed concept of spoken English. As shown

in Figure 2, the teachers who seldom taught reduced forms using linguistic systems, or

never taught using linguistic systems, wanted to increase the role of reduced forms

instruction in their classrooms. These teachers cited Not enough experience teaching of

reduced forms as one of the main challenges in their instruction. None of the teachers

who used linguistic systems in their instruction cited this as a challenge to their

instruction, rather most often citing Not enough time (62.50%) as the main challenge of

instruction. Another challenge cited in reduced forms instruction was Not enough

material. Fifty-seven percent of the teachers that Never taught reduced forms using

linguistic systems marked this option, 45% of those who Seldom used linguistic systems

in instruction marked this option, and only 25% of those who Often used linguistic

systems in the instruction of reduced forms marked this option.


Figure 2. Teachers’ perspectives on reduced forms, grouped by experience teaching

reduced forms as a linguistic system of rules and constraints.

Challenges and Needs of Teachers

Most teachers typically spend 10% or less of any typical class session on reduced

forms instruction. Forty-two percent of the teachers cited Not enough material and Not

enough time as the primary challenges they face in reduced forms instruction, as well as

40% of the teachers citing Not in the curriculum. Forty-four percent of the teachers

would like to see the role of reduced forms instruction increasing in their classroom,

while 56% were satisfied with the amount of reduced forms instruction in their

classrooms.

In response to the open ended item, “What would you like to see in the future with

regard to reduced forms instruction?”, 35 teachers responded. Fifty-four percent of those

who responded called for more materials on reduced forms. Twenty percent of the

teachers called for more instruction and materials available that address the pragmatic

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

"Very" Familiar w/ R.F. Recognize Stress/Time Want increasing role ofR.F.

Not enough TeachingExperience

Survey Items: Teachers Familiarity and PerspectivesOften Use Ling. Systems (N=8) Seldom Use Ling. Systems (N=19) Never Use Ling. Systems (N=21)


aspects of reduced forms. One such respondent wrote, “Social attachment (meaning) in

use of reduced forms is very difficult to explain/teach to students No correct pragmatic

rules and explanation pragmatically” (sic). Another respondent stated, “More emphasis

on how the use of reduced forms varies. For example, understanding/comprehending

reduced forms is important, but students who will use English as a lingua franca with

other NNSs might become less comprehensible if they use too many reduced forms. They

need to be aware of this.” Fourteen percent of the respondents would like to see more

teacher training with respect to reduced forms. Other answers ranged from a focus in all

four skill areas to those who would like a focus on authentic materials for listening or

speaking.

DISCUSSION

Clear trends emerged from the survey, providing answers to the research questions as

well as suggesting areas for the development of pedagogical application and further

research.

How Familiar Are ESL Instructors with the Role of Reduced Forms in Spoken

English?

ESL instructors consider themselves familiar with the role of reduced forms in

spoken English, though teachers have little specific training in reduced forms instruction,

with most information stemming from ESL texts. These texts rarely develop the

systematic linguistic and pragmatic constraints of reduced forms, rather focusing solely

on common examples. Those teachers that received more training in reduced forms

instruction were also those who more often explicitly taught reduced forms, including the

linguistic systems of reduced forms. A majority of the teachers were familiar with most

of the elements involved with reduced forms except for the element of stress-timing in

spoken language. This may explain why instructors tend to teach in context, with

common examples, rather than through the system of linguistic rules and constraints.

Fifty-eight percent of the teachers identified reduced forms as occurring in all types

of language while 42% chose reduced forms as occurring in casual, informal spoken


English. This 42% identifies with the role of reduced forms that is most often supported

by current ESL textbooks, which typically supply common examples of reduced forms in

casual, informal English conversation with little information about the systems in place

that produce them. So while there was little direct training in reduced forms instruction,

the majority of teachers felt familiar with the role of reduced forms in spoken English and

had some experience teaching them. Possibly due to this lack of specific training, very

little time is spent on reduced form instruction, and when it is taught, it is typically taught

using common examples. This despite the fact that most teachers (especially those who

explicitly teach reduced forms) report their students seem Very or Somewhat interested in

reduced forms.

In response to this trend, more materials must be developed both for teachers and

students that go beyond supplying common examples of reduced forms. These materials

should provide teachers, and consequently their students, with more information about

the role of reduced forms in spoken English and the systems in place that produce and

affect them.

What Are ESL Teachers’ Perspectives on the Role of Reduced Forms in Teaching

Listening Comprehension?

Almost all of the teachers considered reduced forms to be an important and helpful

aspect of a learner’s listening comprehension, yet most teachers typically spend 10% or

less of any typical class session on reduced forms instruction. Moreover, more than half

of teachers believed reduced forms occur in all types of spoken English, which would

seem to further strengthen its important and beneficial role in ESL instruction, yet these

perspectives do not change the small amount of instruction learners receive on reduced

forms in spoken English.

Although the majority of teachers felt reduced forms occur in all types of spoken

English, when reduced forms were taught, most of the teachers covered only the common

examples found in context, rather than explicitly teaching reduced forms within their

linguistic and pragmatic systems. The 18 teachers who had taught reduced forms

explicitly were also those who had the most training, felt the most familiar with reduced

forms, recognized the stress-timed element of English more, and more often taught the


linguistic systems of reduced forms. These teachers were also those who on average

rated their students’ interest in reduced forms instruction the highest.

Almost all of the 45 teachers reported that the overwhelming majority of their

students seemed Somewhat to Very interested in reduced forms instruction. The

students’ apparently high level of interest in this topic not only shows the teacher how

helpful and important reduced forms instruction is, but also reaffirms to the teacher that

reduced forms are indeed a valid and integral aspect of spoken English. One teacher

commented that the teacher’s perception of their students’ interest was “not relevant”. I

argue that students’ interest is directly related to student motivation and needs. The

students are interested in those aspects of English that affect them (for example, reduced

forms, which occur throughout all spoken English). Furthermore, the attitude of the

students towards this aspect of spoken English must affect the teacher’s own perspectives

on reduced forms instruction.

The final item on the survey was an open response item, asking teachers for any

insights or opinions that were not covered by the survey that they felt were important.

Three of the comments exemplify the range of perspectives on reduced forms instruction.

One teacher, who had not had specific training in reduced forms, but did consider

reduced forms to be in all types of spoken English, and had taught reduced forms in

context, wrote:

In most (but certainly not all) cases, teaching formal usage and yes, even formal

[italics added] pronunciation serves students best. Reduced forms are a real part of the

language, but they can be learned without heavy emphasis.

Another teacher, who felt that reduced forms most often occur in casual, informal

English, and addressed reduced forms only in context, wrote:

So much depend on the purpose of their English classes. If the purpose is just

conversational [italics added] English, it is much more important than academic,

formal [italics added] English, where it is less important to stress.

The final example comes from a teacher who had specific training in teaching

reduced forms in each training context given in the survey. This teacher also identified

reduced forms as occurring in all types of spoken English, and wrote:

I have had students (who never were exposed to R.F.) [sic] tell me that for the first


time, they felt they were truly learning, plus, the confidence factor is relevant. I’d see

student faces after I talked with other native speakers, their confidence could be

shattered. We didn’t use textbook English.

All of these teachers spoke from personal experience. Yet, it is interesting that the

first two examples, which de-emphasize the role of reduced forms instruction, use the

terms formal and conversational (or rather, “just” conversational) and academic, while

the third teacher described two native speakers (NS) talking in front of a non-native

speaker (NNS). It seems as though the first two, while possibly raising valid points about

the value of needs analysis, seem to ignore the fact that in formal and academic, as well

as conversational, language two NSs will not speak in “textbook English”, but rather will

use reduced forms, or connected speech. The more the NNS students are aware of these

phenomena, the more they will be able to successfully comprehend and communicate in

all areas of communication, including academic and formal settings.

Along with the development of more materials for teachers and students, more

teacher training with respect to reduced forms instruction is necessary in order to more

closely tie teachers’ mostly positive perspectives on reduced forms instruction with their

actual in-class experiences.

What Challenges Do ESL Teachers Face with Respect to Reduced Forms Instruction?

The question arises, then, if teachers feel, in general, that reduced forms instruction is

important and helpful, and that reduced forms occur in all types of spoken English, and

that their students seemed to be Very to Somewhat interested in reduced forms, why is

there such a limited focus on reduced forms in the classroom? Forty-two percent of the

teachers cited Not enough material and Not enough time as the primary challenges they

face in reduced forms instruction, and 40% of the teachers cited Not in the curriculum.

The primary concern of the five teachers who had not taught reduced forms at all was Not

enough available material.

In the open-ended responses, 35 teachers provided answers to the item, “What would

you like to see in the future with regard to reduced forms instruction”. Nineteen of the 35

teachers called for more material to be developed. Seven specifically mentioned

materials for pragmatics and five called for teacher training. While lack of time is a


challenge for teachers, lack of material is what may in fact keep teachers from more

instruction. Teachers themselves would like more material that promotes reduced forms

instruction beyond what is now available.

CONCLUSIONS

As with any research, there are limitations to this study. To begin with, the survey

instrument itself could have been improved to provide more options on the Likert scales.

Also some questions were possibly not clear enough, for example, item eight which

asked how much time in general a teacher may spend on reduced forms. Sixteen of the

45 teachers felt uncomfortable with the available choices and wrote in an alternative

answer, commented on the answer they chose, or skipped this item all together.

The survey also did not delve into specifics of instruction that may have been of

interest for materials development or future research. For example, the survey failed to

ask any questions related to different proficiency levels and instruction. The survey also

did not differentiate enough between reduced forms instruction with respect to listening

comprehension and pronunciation. Despite these limitations, the survey did provide an

insightful summary of ESL instructors’ knowledge, perspectives, and challenges when

teaching (or not teaching, as more often is the case) reduced forms in spoken English.

This paper has attempted to provide an overview of the current literature on reduced

forms and an analysis of ESL teachers’ opinions and perspectives on teaching reduced

forms. It has become clear throughout this process that reduced forms are an integral and

pervasive aspect of spoken English that is seriously neglected in both research and

materials development. Without further research into the role and systematic nature of

reduced forms in English, and the effects of teaching reduced forms, little will change.

Materials must also be developed that answer the needs of the teachers. Furthermore,

these materials must be developed in a systematic way, which not only introduces

common examples, but the linguistic and pragmatic systems that go along with these

forms. Along with these materials, teachers should have the opportunity for teacher

training in the role of reduced forms in spoken English, and the effects of reduced forms

instruction. Hopefully, with the importance of authentic materials becoming more and


more the fashion of English listening and speaking materials, the importance and

significance of reduced forms as a major aspect of communication will increase in the

awareness of researchers, teachers, materials developers, and students.

REFERENCES

Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (1992). Teaching American English pronunciation. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Brown, A. (1995). Minimal pairs: Minimal importance? ELT Journal, 49(2), 169-175.

Brown, G. (1977). Listening to spoken English. London: Longman.

Brown, J. D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to

program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1986). Listening for reduced forms. TESOL Quarterly,

20(4), 759-763.

Brown, J. D., & Hilferty, A. (1989). Teaching reduced forms. Gendai Eigo Kyoiku

January: 26-28.

Buck, G. (1995). How to become a good listening teacher. In D. J. Mendelsohn, & J.

Rubin, (Eds.), A guide for the teaching of second language listening (pp. 113-131).

San Diego, CA: Dominie Press.

Clarey, M. E., & Dixson, R. J. (1963). Pronunciation Exercises in English. New York,

New York: Regents.

Dunkel, P., & Lim, P. L. (1994). Intermediate listening comprehension: Understanding

and recalling spoken English (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Dunkel, P., & Lim, P. L. (1986). Intermediate listening comprehension: Understanding

and recalling spoken English. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Espeseth, M. (1999). Academic listening encounters: Listening, note taking, and

discussion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gabler, B., & Scholnick, N. F. (1995). Listen-in’: Listening/speaking attack strategies for

students of ESL. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Gilbert, J. B. (1993). Clear speech: Pronunciation and listening comprehension in North

American English (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Gimson, A. C. (1975). A practical course of English pronunciation: A perceptual

approach. London: Edward Arnold.

Gimson, A. C. (2001). Gimson’s pronunciation of English (6th ed.). London: Arnold.

Guillot, M. (1999). Fluency and its teaching. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd..

Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2000). Quest: Listening and speaking in the academic world,

Book 3. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Henrichsen, L. E. (1984). Sandhi-variation: A filter of input for learners of ESL.

Language Learning, 34(3), 103-126.

Hewings, M. (1993). Pronunciation tasks: A course for pre-intermediate learners.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hewings, M., & Goldstein, S. (1998). Pronunciation plus - Practice through interaction.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, C. & Beebe, L. M. (1980). Contraction and blending: The use of orthographic clues

in teaching pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 14(3), 299-323.

Jones, K. & Ono, T. (2000). Reconciling textbook dialogues and naturally occurring talk:

What we think we do is not what we do. Arizona Working Papers in SLAT.

Kaisse, E. M. (1985). Connected speech: the interaction of syntax and phonology.

Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Koster, C. J. (1987). Word recognition in foreign and native language. Providence, RI:

Foris Publications.

Leshinsky, J. G. (1995). Authentic listening and discussion for advanced students. New

Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Marks, J. (1999). Is stress-timing real? ELT Journal 53(3), 191-199.

Moh-Kim, Tam (1997). Building fluency: A course for non-native speakers of English.

English Teaching Forum, 35(1), 26-37.

Morley, J. (1991). The pronunciation component in teaching English to speakers of other

languages. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 481- 517.

Norris, R. W. (1993). Teaching reduced forms: An aid for improving lower-level

students’ listening skills. Fukoka Women’s Junior College Studies, 46, 49-56.

Norris, R. W. (1995). Teaching reduced forms: Putting the horse before the cart. English

Teaching Forum, 33, 47-50.


Pennington, M. C., & Richards, J. C. (1986). Pronunciation revisited. TESOL Quarterly

20(2), 207-225.

Prator, C .H., & Robinett, B. W. (1972). Manual of American English pronunciation (3rd

ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Richards, J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL

Quarterly, 17(2), 219-240.

Rost, M. (1991). Listening in action: Activities for developing listening in language

teaching. New York: Prentice Hall.

Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-

246.

Snow, B. G., & Perkins, K. (1979). The teaching of listening comprehension and

communication activities. TESOL Quarterly, 13(1), 51-61.

Ur, P. (1987). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Weinstein, N. (1982). Whaddaya say? Guided practice in relaxed spoken English. Culver

City, CA: ELS Publications.

Weinstein, N. (2001). Whaddaya say? Guided practice in relaxed speech. New York:

Addison Wesley Longman.


APPENDIX

UH Manoa M.A. survey Spring 2003 All information will remain confidential and anonymous.

The purpose of this survey is to investigate the opinions, perspectives, and attitudes of ESL instructors towards

the teaching of reduced forms. Reduced forms refer to a common aspect of spoken English. Another name for reduced forms could be “connected speech”. (For example, some common reduced forms are “gonna” for “going to” or “couldja” for “could you”.)

How long have you taught ESL? ______________________________________________________ First language _________________ Other Languages _____________________________________ Type of program __________________________________________________________________

1. Have you taken courses on teaching ESL listening comprehension? ______YES ______NO If so, were teaching reduced forms covered in these courses? ______YES ______NO

Were reduced forms covered in any of your teacher training? ______YES ______NO Did you learn about reduced forms from ESL textbooks? ______YES ______NO

2. How well do you understand the role of reduced forms in spoken English? ______Very well ______ Some what familiar _____Not very familiar _____ Not at all

3. Which description best reflects your view of the use of reduced forms? (Please check one.) ______Reduced forms occur most often in fast spoken English. ______Reduced forms occur most often in casual, informal spoken English. ______Reduced forms occur in all types of spoken English.

4. Please check all the following aspects of reduced forms with which you are familiar: _____Assimilation of sounds

_____Linking of sounds _____Deletions of sounds _____Contractions _____Stress-timed languages

_____Identifying content words and structure words _____The English schwa sound _____Other___________________________________________________________________

5. Do you consider reduced forms to be an important element to teach in ESL listening comprehension?

____ Very important _____Somewhat important _____Not very important ____ Not important at all

6. How helpful do you feel reduced forms instruction might be for your students’ listening comprehension? _____Very helpful _____Somewhat helpful _____Not very helpful ____Not helpful at all

7. Have you taught reduced forms in your classes? (Please check all that apply.) _____I have explicitly taught reduced forms in my class. _____I have addressed reduced forms in my class when they have come up in context. _____I have addressed reduced forms with respect to student’s pronunciation. _____I have addressed reduced forms with respect to student’s listening comprehension. _____I have never taught reduced forms in my classes. _____Other_____________________________________________________________________

If you have never taught reduced forms, please skip to question 14.

8. In any given class session (for example one 50 minute class period), how much time do you typically devote to reduced forms instruction? ____100% ____80% ____60% ____40% ____20% ____10% _____0%

9. With respect to reduced forms instruction, what percentage of your students seem to be:

Very Interested? _______% Somewhat Interested? _______% Not very interested? _______% Not interested at all? _______% Other? ________________________________________________________________________

10. I teach reduced forms as a system of linguistic rules and constraints. _____Often _____Seldom _____Never

11. I teach reduced forms as a system of pragmatic (appropriate social contexts) rules and constraints. _____Often _____Seldom _____Never

12. I teach reduced forms within context, using common examples. _____Often _____Seldom _____Never


13. What are the challenges you face when teaching reduced forms: (Please check all that apply) _____Not enough time available in the course.

_____Not identified as a need by the students. _____Not enough available material. _____Not in the curriculum. _____Not enough experience teaching reduced forms. _____Other_____________________________________________________________________

14. Even if you have not yet taught reduced forms, what challenges do you think you might face: (Please check all that might apply) _____Not enough time available in the course. _____Not identified as a need by the students. _____Not enough available material. _____Not in the curriculum. _____Not enough experience teaching reduced forms. _____Other_____________________________________________________________________

15. Would you like to see the role of reduced forms in your own ESL classroom in the future _____Increasing _____Staying the same _____Decreasing

16. What would you like to see in the future with regard to reduced forms instruction?

17. Are there any insights or perspectives about reduced forms not covered by this survey that you think are important or valuable?

Thank you for your time and cooperation. The results of this survey will be written up as a scholarly paper at UH Manoa ESL Department. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me at [email protected]. If you would like a copy of the results of this paper, please provide your email address.

Moana Rosa

Department of Second Language Studies

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

1890 East-West Road

Honolulu, HI 96822

[email protected]

Documents

DON’CHA KNOW? A SURVEY OF ESL TEACHERS’ PERSPECTIVES … · Rosa – ESL Teachers’ Perspectives on Reduced Forms Instruction 52 as a product of the stress-timed language in